4 ms·

Yes, if jurors feel that way about tax laws - then yes - acquit the defendant and possibly start changing tax law.

• neilparikh 15y ago
  But then you're bringing opinion into the law. If the jurors on one trial think that 30% isn't fair, but jurors on another trial think that it is fair, you haven't got a fair system anymore. Isn't the law based on justice and fairness? And this doesn't only apply to tax laws. There could be a difference of opinion on other cases too. While the law nullification idea is a good idea in theory, it starts to break down in practice.
  • dennisgorelik 15y ago
    The whole idea of having jurors is to bring opinion of peers into making judgement about the case. Of course it's better to make a system that would be consistently fair (e.g. keep taxes at the level vast majority of society supports it). But if two available options are "not fair" and "not always fair" - I'd pick "not always fair".
  • kingkilr 15y ago
    The supreme court has in past found that punishments which are capriciously applied are inherently cruel and unusual (Furman v. Georgia).